Editor,
The recent letters to the editor about the issue of smoking on campus are yet another example of confusing issues related to public health with morality in order to justify regulating the behavior of others.
In the United States, people no longer have the right to harm themselves, and anything deemed by one group to be unhealthy is likely to become a legislative issue as demands are made to limit the freedom of others in the name of public health.
The true goal of the anti-smoking crowd is not to protect nonsmokers from second-hand smoke. Rather, they would like to see smoking banned altogether because it is an unhealthy habit.
I believe, however, that there is no such thing as a perfect world, which is to say that in order to protect people from themselves, it is also necessary to limit their freedom. In my opinion, the anti-smoking zealots fail to recognize the unhealthiness of limiting the freedom of others ostensibly to protect them from themselves.
I agree that smokers should not be able to light up in buildings on campus where nonsmokers are going to be exposed to second-hand smoke. I believe their rights should be respected as well as those of smokers. Unfortunately, however, the anti-smoking crowd has no intention of respecting the rights of smokers.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
For example, they would probably be the first to complain about affording smokers one building or heated enclosure on campus where smokers can partake of their vice without having to be exposed to the elements such as the cold and snow. Undoubtedly, the anti-smoking crowd that whines about the rights of nonsmokers would be against providing a heated facility on campus for the benefit of smokers. After all, smokers are engaging in an unhealthy habit so they deserve to suffer in the cold weather and snow if they want to engage in their awful habit. So much for respecting the rights of others.
Behind all the rhetoric of the anti-smoking crowd and their talk about public health lies a thinly veiled attempt to impose their morality - based upon the notion that people don't have the right to harm themselves - on others.
It has nothing to do with health and everything to do with morality. Otherwise, they would be content to allow smokers to have at least one building on campus in which they could smoke in peace. Smokers probably crowd around the entrances of buildings because it is cold and they want to try to warm themselves with the air coming out of the doors when they are opened.
If the University would allow smokers to have a centrally located and heated enclosure in which they could smoke, I would certainly be in favor of moving the ashtrays away from buildings to further protect nonsmokers. But the rights of smokers should be also be considered, and smokers should not allow themselves to be bullied into silence by the inflammatory rhetoric of anti-smoking zealots.
Emil Crawford
UNM student
